gingerjet:hubiestubert: It's going to be an interesting day. For those who show up today, wear red. It's time to move past this, and finally deliver on rights to all our citizens. On grounds of religious freedom, on grounds of equality under the law, on grounds of privacy. It is long past time.

No I won't. Seriously - its idiotic and doesn't do a damn thing. Why don't you mentor to a gay high school student instead? Or give money to a local gay rights organization (like Out Front in Minnesota)? Oh wait - that would actually require effort and real commitment. Sorry.

/gay//also not changing my avatar to that idiotic red equality sign

I am not sure what he's referring to when he says "show up" but isn't showing up for something showing effort and commitment?

It is empirically established that opposition to homosexuality correlates with the presence of homosexual desire. Further, that intensity of opposition to homosexuality correlates with the intensity of homosexual desire.

It is empirically established that opposition to homosexuality correlates with the presence of homosexual desire. Further, that intensity of opposition to homosexuality correlates with the intensity of homosexual desire.

Homophobic men get boners when shown gay porn. It's been studied. Closely. Deeply.

verbaltoxin:bugontherug: syrynxx: I bet Scalia sits on a butt plug all day.

It is empirically established that opposition to homosexuality correlates with the presence of homosexual desire. Further, that intensity of opposition to homosexuality correlates with the intensity of homosexual desire.

Homophobic men get boners when shown gay porn. It's been studied. Closely. Deeply.

Graffito:Grungehamster: What are you talking about? Scalia is the father of the "strict constructionist" argument; of course he pretends to be impartial. Maybe impartial is the wrong word: he claims to be unbiased by personal opinions and rules strictly by what the founders intended (which, of course, perfectly is mirrored by the views of modern conservatives.) His opinion of gays as inherently corrupt and sinful individuals has nothing to do with how he will rule. No, the fact that the founders would have been offended by two men marrying one another.ra

Which of the founding fathers does he channel? If we interrupt him while channeling will it cause Scalia irreparable brain damage. Does his wife prefer to make love to him or his "founding father" persona?

I'm just asking questions.

Obviously not Thomas Jefferson, since Jefferson loathed the potential of corporations to influence a democratic government.

Rapmaster2000:Scalia LITERALLY reads the Constitution and if you study it out then you will see that the Founders agreed on everything, but especially that marriage is ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN for purposes of PROCREATION ONLY.

verbaltoxin:bugontherug: syrynxx: I bet Scalia sits on a butt plug all day.

It is empirically established that opposition to homosexuality correlates with the presence of homosexual desire. Further, that intensity of opposition to homosexuality correlates with the intensity of homosexual desire.

Homophobic men get boners when shown gay porn. It's been studied. Closely. Deeply.

I always wonder if those studies try to account for the possibility that the same people that are so derpy about homosexuality are also often derpy about sexuality generally.

Is it that homophobes actually get off on gay porn, or are they just so deeply repressed across the board that any sexuality becomes arousing when presented because it's a novelty?

verbaltoxin:bugontherug: syrynxx: I bet Scalia sits on a butt plug all day.

It is empirically established that opposition to homosexuality correlates with the presence of homosexual desire. Further, that intensity of opposition to homosexuality correlates with the intensity of homosexual desire.

Homophobic men get boners when shown gay porn. It's been studied. Closely. Deeply.

Aside from the idiocy of thinking it's too early to rule on same sex marriage (is he hoping that if he shuts his eyes tight enough and goes into earmuff mode the issue will just go away?), does that mean that gay marriage is legal again in Cali? The 'won't uphold or strike down' seems a bit confusing to me. I was under the impression that they'd have to decide on way or another.

Actually they can punt on both of the issues by saying the House Committee isn't a valid solicitor for DOMA & that the prop 8 people aren't because they weren't the original people who argued at the state level (the governor basically no-showed).

skozlaw:verbaltoxin: bugontherug: syrynxx: I bet Scalia sits on a butt plug all day.

It is empirically established that opposition to homosexuality correlates with the presence of homosexual desire. Further, that intensity of opposition to homosexuality correlates with the intensity of homosexual desire.

Homophobic men get boners when shown gay porn. It's been studied. Closely. Deeply.

I always wonder if those studies try to account for the possibility that the same people that are so derpy about homosexuality are also often derpy about sexuality generally.

Is it that homophobes actually get off on gay porn, or are they just so deeply repressed across the board that any sexuality becomes arousing when presented because it's a novelty?

Here's the study, and here's an article from Psychology Today. My ballpark guess it's a study that shows correlation.

Abstract:

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

Car_Ramrod:Once again, at it's very base concept, if men are allowed to marry women, but women aren't allowed to marry women, that's blatant gender discrimination.

I had never considered this blatantly obvious concept before. I had always looked at it as 'How does the marriage of any two or more other individuals impact my marriage (regardless of sex)?' I had never considered the gender discrimination as well.

gingerjet:No I won't. Seriously - its idiotic and doesn't do a damn thing. Why don't you mentor to a gay high school student instead? Or give money to a local gay rights organization (like Out Front in Minnesota)? Oh wait - that would actually require effort and real commitment. Sorry.

I'm usually against useless gestures that allow people to feel like they're doing something when they could have actually done something, but wearing something to show support of gay rights is one of those rare occasions where donning a different color might actually do some good. I mean, wearing pink to show you support breast cancer research is pointless--who honestly thought that you didn't already support that? But someone who hasn't come out as gay yet is on the defensive; in order to protect themselves, they've learned to assume that someone won't be okay with them being gay unless they have a solid indication otherwise. Showing support like this might come as a surprise or a relief and make it easier to come out later.

Your perspective is likely different if you live and work in an environment with a lot of people who are already out, but I work at a college, where students may have mostly figured themselves out but they're still unsure about dealing with people around them.

mrshowrules:Scalia is the last of a dying breed. We know hot that works out in the end.

That "last of a dying breed" has at least 3, and possibly 5 votes on the current Supreme Court. :-/

/My worthless prediction: on today's case, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas: HELL no. Roberts and Kennedy: punt on states rights grounds//Will be hilarious to see the mental gymnastics Scalia goes through to justify carve outs to the Full Faith and Credit clause///Slashies come in threes. Scalia thinks this is as horrible as murder

That "last of a dying breed" has at least 3, and possibly 5 votes on the current Supreme Court. :-/

/My worthless prediction: on today's case, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas: HELL no. Roberts and Kennedy: punt on states rights grounds//Will be hilarious to see the mental gymnastics Scalia goes through to justify carve outs to the Full Faith and Credit clause///Slashies come in threes. Scalia thinks this is as horrible as murder

It's going to come down to Roberts, then. If he sides with the liberals, it will establish Roberts as the centrist who's realized somebody has to counter-balance Scalia.

verbaltoxin:bugontherug: syrynxx: I bet Scalia sits on a butt plug all day.

It is empirically established that opposition to homosexuality correlates with the presence of homosexual desire. Further, that intensity of opposition to homosexuality correlates with the intensity of homosexual desire.

Homophobic men get boners when shown gay porn. It's been studied. Closely. Deeply.

which study are you referring to? The Rochester study says that people with repressed homosexuality are more likely to be homophobic but I don't think it says anything about homophobes being by and large repressed homosexuals

Virtuoso80:Rachael Maddow said it herself after watching a Supreme Court session: Scalia is a troll. He loves riling people up, and shocking you with what he says.

It's more accurate to say that he loves playing law professor. He pushes the hypothetical questions to an extreme so that people have to take strong stances on the underlying principles. I had lots of professors just like that. Generally, it makes the discussion more lively and makes people address things more clearly.

/according to this thread, no matter what position I take, the gheys disagree with me.

skullkrusher:verbaltoxin: bugontherug: syrynxx: I bet Scalia sits on a butt plug all day.

It is empirically established that opposition to homosexuality correlates with the presence of homosexual desire. Further, that intensity of opposition to homosexuality correlates with the intensity of homosexual desire.

Homophobic men get boners when shown gay porn. It's been studied. Closely. Deeply.

which study are you referring to? The Rochester study says that people with repressed homosexuality are more likely to be homophobic but I don't think it says anything about homophobes being by and large repressed homosexuals

ShadowKamui:Actually they can punt on both of the issues by saying the House Committee isn't a valid solicitor for DOMA & that the prop 8 people aren't because they weren't the original people who argued at the state level (the governor basically no-showed).

What would a punt on standing mean in each of these cases?

On the Prop 8 case, the appeals court ruling would set precedent in 9 states. It was broadly decided (not just on the "because California once permitted it they can't rescind it", but on the broader equal protection grounds). Hello SSM in Montana and Arizona, if not nationally.

On the DOMA case, there really can't logically be split in the circuits. Either DOMA is unconstitutional, nationally, or it isn't, and all the lower court decisions on this are that it isn't constitutional. Clearly Edie Windsor had the standing to bring the case in the first place (and won), the question is whether the congressional committee had the standing to appeal the decision.

So, punting invalidates DOMA and brings SSM to 8 more states. A clear if not total win for the SSM advocates.

chapman:Virtuoso80: Rachael Maddow said it herself after watching a Supreme Court session: Scalia is a troll. He loves riling people up, and shocking you with what he says.

It's more accurate to say that he loves playing law professor. He pushes the hypothetical questions to an extreme so that people have to take strong stances on the underlying principles. I had lots of professors just like that. Generally, it makes the discussion more lively and makes people address things more clearly.

/according to this thread, no matter what position I take, the gheys disagree with me.

Trouble is, he's not there to educate lawyers who are arguing before the Supreme Court on lively debate. He's there to hear their arguments and make a ruling based on precedent and the Constitution. If he wants to stoke the fires of law students' minds, he should retire and go work at a law school. I realize even Ted Cruz has argued before the Court, so not everyone who walks into those chambers is an intellectual giant, but you certainly aren't there to be picked on by a justice when matters relating to the bedrock of our laws are being argued.

skozlaw:verbaltoxin: bugontherug: syrynxx: I bet Scalia sits on a butt plug all day.

It is empirically established that opposition to homosexuality correlates with the presence of homosexual desire. Further, that intensity of opposition to homosexuality correlates with the intensity of homosexual desire.

Homophobic men get boners when shown gay porn. It's been studied. Closely. Deeply.

I always wonder if those studies try to account for the possibility that the same people that are so derpy about homosexuality are also often derpy about sexuality generally.

Is it that homophobes actually get off on gay porn, or are they just so deeply repressed across the board that any sexuality becomes arousing when presented because it's a novelty?

You can control for that. They do. It would be a pretty basic experimental design question when you were submitting your proposal to the department chair or whatever.

Babwa Wawa:vernonFL: In an interview with Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow said that Scalia is a troll. He says things to intentionally get a rise out of the other Justices and the attorneys, staff and public who are present during arguments.

He's a troll.

Scalia's an ass, but I articles like this misrepresent his asshattery.

Part of what folks do in the legal profession is draw and play games with analogies. "If this is legal, why not this? If this is illegal, why not that?" is a big part of the theory of law.

The actual back and forth brings a microscope to the thinking of a particular justice, and in fact I like the fact that I know what Scalia's thinking, why he thinks it, and how he's likely to rule. It's a hell of a lot better than silence. Like that Clarence Thomas douche.

He's a boogie man for the left and while I don't agree with his originalist interpretation of the Constitution at all. It's telling that he and Bader-Ginsberg the most liberal justice on the court are very close friends, like dinner once a week and appearing together at fun raisers. So he's on the opposite end of the political spectrum from most Farkers, but he's not evil incarnate.

It is empirically established that opposition to homosexuality correlates with the presence of homosexual desire. Further, that intensity of opposition to homosexuality correlates with the intensity of homosexual desire.

Homophobic men get boners when shown gay porn. It's been studied. Closely. Deeply.

which study are you referring to? The Rochester study says that people with repressed homosexuality are more likely to be homophobic but I don't think it says anything about homophobes being by and large repressed homosexuals

I already linked the study earlier. It's on Pub-Med, and was discussed in Psychology Today.

I saw that after I posted. It does stand to reason that men who are uncomfortable around gay men could be hiding something. I don't think it accounts for most of anti-gay sentiment though. I think irrational hatred is just irrational hatred sometimes. These studies seem to focus on people who are actually homophobic - that is, afraid of gay people

It is empirically established that opposition to homosexuality correlates with the presence of homosexual desire. Further, that intensity of opposition to homosexuality correlates with the intensity of homosexual desire.

Homophobic men get boners when shown gay porn. It's been studied. Closely. Deeply.

which study are you referring to? The Rochester study says that people with repressed homosexuality are more likely to be homophobic but I don't think it says anything about homophobes being by and large repressed homosexuals

I already linked the study earlier. It's on Pub-Med, and was discussed in Psychology Today.

I saw that after I posted. It does stand to reason that men who are uncomfortable around gay men could be hiding something. I don't think it accounts for most of anti-gay sentiment though. I think irrational hatred is just irrational hatred sometimes. These studies seem to focus on people who are actually homophobic - that is, afraid of gay people

Yes that would be the definition of homophobia. Are there people who don't like gay people who aren't homophobic, and whose hatred of them is rational?

Prank Call of Cthulhu:In all fairness, pretty much everything out of Scalia's mouth is stupid. This is the guy who once said that torture doesn't violate the prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" because it's not punishment. Some misfiring neurons in the gray mass of goo that passes for a brain in his skull actually managed to flop his big stupid jaw up and down and vibrate his vocal cords and pump his lungs to make those sounds come out of his fat gob. I had a retarded kid as a neighbor for a while who'd stand out in the backyard smacking himself on the head over and over with a tree branch going "HYEEEOOOOOOWWWWWWNGGGG" over and over again, and that kid is a freaking Einstein-level genius compared to Scalia.

In all fairness, Scalia is the only justice on the court right now who cares about your individual rights when it comes to search and seizure. So, I'll take his backhanded bigoted views on this issue and be glad there's at least one person on the court who doesn't believe in absolute government power.

It is empirically established that opposition to homosexuality correlates with the presence of homosexual desire. Further, that intensity of opposition to homosexuality correlates with the intensity of homosexual desire.

Homophobic men get boners when shown gay porn. It's been studied. Closely. Deeply.

which study are you referring to? The Rochester study says that people with repressed homosexuality are more likely to be homophobic but I don't think it says anything about homophobes being by and large repressed homosexuals

I already linked the study earlier. It's on Pub-Med, and was discussed in Psychology Today.

I saw that after I posted. It does stand to reason that men who are uncomfortable around gay men could be hiding something. I don't think it accounts for most of anti-gay sentiment though. I think irrational hatred is just irrational hatred sometimes. These studies seem to focus on people who are actually homophobic - that is, afraid of gay people

Yes that would be the definition of homophobia. Are there people who don't like gay people who aren't homophobic, and whose hatred of them is rational?

Yes, I think there are people who just hate gay people. I don't think every homophobe is a closet case. I think the fact that people who are actually afraid of gay people - "homophobic" as opposed to just bigoted - are more likely to be repressed makes perfect sense.

Just as Rufus might be afraid of black people and doesn't want to be around them is not secretly black.

I'm just going to butt in here and say that majority of what you people hear about Scalia is fear mongering from the left. Please read up on his decisions (all of them) before you make a case against him. PRO-TIP: The Supreme Court hears more than just Gay Marriage, Citizens United, and DOMA

verbaltoxin:Trouble is, he's not there to educate lawyers who are arguing before the Supreme Court on lively debate. He's there to hear their arguments and make a ruling based on precedent and the Constitution. If he wants to stoke the fires of law students' minds, he should retire and go work at a law school. I realize even Ted Cruz has argued before the Court, so not everyone who walks into those chambers is an intellectual giant, but you certainly aren't there to be picked on by a justice when matters relating to the bedrock of our laws are being argued.

Having interned in a court of appeal, I think there are good reasons for his approach. I've seen it used to great effect. He is there to test the lawyers and their arguments. It is a perfectly valid method of argument to use extreme examples to see if people start to hedge or invent limiting principles. When the court issues its opinion, it needs to be able to control the scope of what it decides. Comparing homosexuality to race or comparing it to polygamy are fine. Lawyers need to explain why those things are different or similar.

Personally, I prefer the Thomas method. Cases are so thoroughly briefed by the time that they reach the Supreme Court oral argument is less helpful. Unless a justice truly doesn't understand an issue, or is attempting to persuade another justice, questions and oral argument will seldom be very helpful.

Y'know, there's a reason agnostics are around. God needed to put someone in the world to state how full of shiat the Bible is.

/And the Koran//And the Torah///And every "holy book" in existence////When taken literally and NOT as a guide

They do exist! They just get, well, kinda ignored.

The pastors at the UCC church I grew up in seemed to ascribe to the 'guidebook' view.. heck, one of the UCC's mottos is "God is still speaking."

/They're also not huge fans of that "Faith, not acts", as they seem to see it as a distinction without a difference. 'To believe is to care, to care is to do.'//Not really affiliated with the UCC anymore, but still proud of them and like to try to draw attention to them! Since their own attempts to promote themselves were banned from the airwaves, because love and tolerance is apparently WAY too farking controversial...

Now That's What I Call a Taco!:Does anybody have a good link to the facts of today's specific case? How could they not have standing before SCOTUS, but did have standing before the 9th Cir.?

As I understand it, no standing would vacate 9th Cir. decision as well, and so is would go back to the district judge's original decision, who ruled against Prop. 8 even more broadly than the 9th circuit did.

The circuit court asked the California SC whether the Prop 8 proponents would have standing to appeal in a state court (where it started out), and the California SC said yes. That is, though, just advisory and the SCOTUS isn't bound to their opinion on standing. Which, yes, if no one on the anti-SSM-side has standing to appeal, we go back to the District Court ruling.

Which is even more fun, because a federal district court ruling wouldn't even necessarily set a precedent that applies in all of California, though presumably Prop 8 would be invalidated statewide (particularly since no one in power supports it).

Lawnchair:ShadowKamui:Actually they can punt on both of the issues by saying the House Committee isn't a valid solicitor for DOMA & that the prop 8 people aren't because they weren't the original people who argued at the state level (the governor basically no-showed).

What would a punt on standing mean in each of these cases?

On the Prop 8 case, the appeals court ruling would set precedent in 9 states. It was broadly decided (not just on the "because California once permitted it they can't rescind it", but on the broader equal protection grounds). Hello SSM in Montana and Arizona, if not nationally.

On the DOMA case, there really can't logically be split in the circuits. Either DOMA is unconstitutional, nationally, or it isn't, and all the lower court decisions on this are that it isn't constitutional. Clearly Edie Windsor had the standing to bring the case in the first place (and won), the question is whether the congressional committee had the standing to appeal the decision.

So, punting invalidates DOMA and brings SSM to 8 more states. A clear if not total win for the SSM advocates.

Invalidating DOMA would bring same sex marriage to a lot more than 8 states; at least it will if the involved parties are willing to spend a weekend and a couple tanks of gas. They could find the nearest state which offers full-on gay marriage, get married there, and bring their license back to their home state - where, without DOMA, it would have to be accepted under the full faith and credit clause.

Or it would as soon as it is rejected, they sue, and it's brought before a judge.

You might be surprised. Even if they don't decide to punt by ruling purely on the standing issue, I can easily see it winding up 5-4 against bans with Roberts in the majority and Kennedy drafting a separate dissent. Roberts is definitely concerned with both his legacy and that of the Court. He definitely doesn't want to be on the wrong end of this generation's Plessy, and that's informed some of his decisions before, so that might well continue.